The 5D performs better at higher ISOs and Canon has a stronger lens lie up than Sony has at present.
Harry http://behret.smugmug.com/NANPA member How many photographers does it take to change a light bulb? 50. One to change the bulb, and forty-nine to say, "I could have done that better!"
0
Matthew SavilleRegistered Users, Retired ModPosts: 3,352Major grins
edited June 21, 2011
The Canon 5D mk2 will have FAR better low-light performance beyond ISO 800; the A900 can be completely un-usable in shadow detail at ISO 1600 or higher. (While cameras like the Nikon D700 and D3s rock great detail all the way to 6400 and 12800...)
The Canon 5D mk2 may or may not have a better AF system, but the lens of choice is probably more important in that situation.
Which brings me to another point- lens selection is ALSO important when it comes to ISO and low-light, and Sony has in-camera stabilization which gives you an advantage with EVERY lens you put on the camera. Namely, Canon may NEVER have the ability to stabilize an f/1.4 prime, while Sony of course can offer that benefit.
All in all, I think it comes down to what you're going to shoot. Portraits, weddings, events, low-light? Get the Canon system, or better yet get Nikon. :-P Adventures, landscapes, nature, fine art? The Sony A900 and A850 are undoubtedly THE VERY BEST value on the market today, by far. (I don't know if Nikon will ever offer a 24 megapixel camera in a sub-$3000 package, but of course if they did (which might happen this fall) ...then I would probably crown NIKON as king of the fine-art nature / landscape photography system. Especially considering the amazing sharpness of the 14-24 ultrawide...)
As Matt says, it all comes down to what you want to shoot! I have progressed through the Sony lineup and have ended up with the 900, I have shot at a couple of family weddings (good results considering I don't 'do' people) good enough that the photobooks I made are still pride of place.
I do a lot of gardens / animals / zoo's with no issues at all but my main 'gig' is motor racing which I actually get paid for so I can't be doing that bad at it
The fact you have a huge array of older Minolta glass to choose from (all stabalised) at really good prices ads to the deal for me anyway - just bought a 22 year old Minolta 200mm 2.8 - they really knew how to build 'G' glass back then.
.DAVID.
PS: my 'main' cover everything kit is a900 / 70-400G / 24-70CZ / Tamron 90mm / Minolta 200mm 2.8
I actually think that the a900's sensor is the same one as the Nikon 3dx. This is a bit of a rumor, but Sony does manufacture Nikon's sensors, and Nikon has never directly refuted this.
But the sensor is really all the a900 has. It's definitely got A nerfed processor, and worse glass.
The sensor is essentially the same, but nikon got a lot better mileage out of it, 14bit vs 12, more dynamic range (roughly 1.5 stops?) and better high iso.
As far as I understand, this is a processor issue? My guess is that Sony agreed to 12 bit sampling to keep differentiation between their cameras. Otherwise Nikon might have taken an issue with their supplier undercutting them.
Are those Sony lenses comparably priced with L series lenses?
... the 135 1.8 is a full stop faster than the 135L, but does cost maybe 60% more?
...
Minor correction: The Sony 135mm, f1.8 Sonnar T* is around 1/3rd faster than the Canon EF 135mm, f2L USM. (You may have been thinking of the Canon EF 135mm, f2.8 SF (Soft Focus) which, despite the name, is a very sharp lens.)
In terms of image quality the Canon 135mm, f2L is about as sharp as the Sony 135mm, f1.8 Sonnar T* at similar apertures, but I believe that the Sony has a bit more global contrast. Both are just excellent lenses for their respective platforms.
Would some one, tell me diferences betwing the CANON 5D MARK II, and SONY 900? apart the video
If you are not invested, I'd think long and hard before going with Sony if you need a DSLR. I am in the process of switching systems because my old company seems to be on the way out of the reflex business. It is a pain. Sony is on the same track and sees the NX as its future.
Given the two companies you mentioned, I know which I'd pick.
If you are not invested, I'd think long and hard before going with Sony if you need a DSLR. I am in the process of switching systems because my old company seems to be on the way out of the reflex business. It is a pain. Sony is on the same track and sees the NX as its future.
Given the two companies you mentioned, I know which I'd pick.
Canon feeds the mass market with Rebels; they have stated that they don't need to have a mirrorless solution because their Rebels sell so well (pretty tiny too, compared to xxD/xD cameras). I don't think this means that they WON'T release a mirrorless, just that they don't HAVE to. Sony, OTOH, feeds the mass market with the small, pocketable NEX. I find it amazing that the NEX bodies actually have a bigger sensor than the Rebels! Anyway, Canon and Sony just feed the semi-advanced mass market different ways. As you mention, Sony also has the SLT cameras as a higher-end option, but I bet they sell a lot more NEX than SLT. SLT's do have some advantages over reflex mirrors, just as reflex has advantages over SLT. Depends on which you prefer, I guess. I would not be surprised to see the SLT technology grow rapidly and be adopted by other brands as well. The major drawback is the mirror blocking some light to the sensor, but as sensors get more and more efficient and push the boundaries of high ISO, it may become standard. (Not that I'd like it to.)
Comments
http://behret.smugmug.com/ NANPA member
How many photographers does it take to change a light bulb? 50. One to change the bulb, and forty-nine to say, "I could have done that better!"
The Canon 5D mk2 may or may not have a better AF system, but the lens of choice is probably more important in that situation.
Which brings me to another point- lens selection is ALSO important when it comes to ISO and low-light, and Sony has in-camera stabilization which gives you an advantage with EVERY lens you put on the camera. Namely, Canon may NEVER have the ability to stabilize an f/1.4 prime, while Sony of course can offer that benefit.
All in all, I think it comes down to what you're going to shoot. Portraits, weddings, events, low-light? Get the Canon system, or better yet get Nikon. :-P Adventures, landscapes, nature, fine art? The Sony A900 and A850 are undoubtedly THE VERY BEST value on the market today, by far. (I don't know if Nikon will ever offer a 24 megapixel camera in a sub-$3000 package, but of course if they did (which might happen this fall) ...then I would probably crown NIKON as king of the fine-art nature / landscape photography system. Especially considering the amazing sharpness of the 14-24 ultrawide...)
=Matt=
=Matt=
My SmugMug Portfolio • My Astro-Landscape Photo Blog • Dgrin Weddings Forum
I do a lot of gardens / animals / zoo's with no issues at all but my main 'gig' is motor racing which I actually get paid for so I can't be doing that bad at it
The fact you have a huge array of older Minolta glass to choose from (all stabalised) at really good prices ads to the deal for me anyway - just bought a 22 year old Minolta 200mm 2.8 - they really knew how to build 'G' glass back then.
.DAVID.
PS: my 'main' cover everything kit is a900 / 70-400G / 24-70CZ / Tamron 90mm / Minolta 200mm 2.8
Take nothing but pictures. Leave nothing but footprints
But the sensor is really all the a900 has. It's definitely got A nerfed processor, and worse glass.
That being said, it's also 5K cheaper than a 3dx.
Are those Sony lenses comparably priced with L series lenses?
Minor correction: The Sony 135mm, f1.8 Sonnar T* is around 1/3rd faster than the Canon EF 135mm, f2L USM. (You may have been thinking of the Canon EF 135mm, f2.8 SF (Soft Focus) which, despite the name, is a very sharp lens.)
In terms of image quality the Canon 135mm, f2L is about as sharp as the Sony 135mm, f1.8 Sonnar T* at similar apertures, but I believe that the Sony has a bit more global contrast. Both are just excellent lenses for their respective platforms.
Moderator of the Cameras and Accessories forums
If you are not invested, I'd think long and hard before going with Sony if you need a DSLR. I am in the process of switching systems because my old company seems to be on the way out of the reflex business. It is a pain. Sony is on the same track and sees the NX as its future.
Given the two companies you mentioned, I know which I'd pick.
www.spanielsport.com
Canon feeds the mass market with Rebels; they have stated that they don't need to have a mirrorless solution because their Rebels sell so well (pretty tiny too, compared to xxD/xD cameras). I don't think this means that they WON'T release a mirrorless, just that they don't HAVE to. Sony, OTOH, feeds the mass market with the small, pocketable NEX. I find it amazing that the NEX bodies actually have a bigger sensor than the Rebels! Anyway, Canon and Sony just feed the semi-advanced mass market different ways. As you mention, Sony also has the SLT cameras as a higher-end option, but I bet they sell a lot more NEX than SLT. SLT's do have some advantages over reflex mirrors, just as reflex has advantages over SLT. Depends on which you prefer, I guess. I would not be surprised to see the SLT technology grow rapidly and be adopted by other brands as well. The major drawback is the mirror blocking some light to the sensor, but as sensors get more and more efficient and push the boundaries of high ISO, it may become standard. (Not that I'd like it to.)